????我們大多數人都不愿支付更高的價格，但近來關于“我們是否應當允許通脹小幅走高以幫助美國經濟增長”的爭論逐漸升溫。

????本周早些時候，獲得諾貝爾獎的經濟學家羅伯特?恩格爾與另一名諾貝爾獎得主保羅?克魯格曼共同分析了物價快速增長的情景。他們認為，這將幫助降低失業。而且克魯格曼認為，為提振經濟，美聯儲（Federal Reserve）需要容忍最高4%的通脹率。這是美聯儲主席本?伯南克所設定通脹目標的近兩倍。伯南克一直表示，高于這一水平將“十分危險”，可能折斷美國的經濟復蘇之路。

????伯南克也許說得對，但經濟學家們呼吁提高通脹的觀點也值得考慮。

????房屋和公寓租金上漲將成為推動通脹的一大動力。畢竟，房租在消費者價格指數中占比相對較高（31%）。在剔除價格波動較大的食品和能源商品的核心通脹率中，房租占比就更高了，達到41%左右。

????從全美范圍來看，由于擁有自有住房的家庭減少，房租已經快速上漲。美國商務部（U.S. Commerce Department）本月早些時候發布的數據顯示，今年前3個月，房租要價中位值為每月721美元——較上年同期上漲5.6%。與此同時，即便當前是買房最便宜的時期，住房自有率已跌至65.5%，低于2005年的峰值69.2%。

????確實，房屋租賃市場可以很快推高通脹。如果有可能，當然沒人愿意多付錢給房東。但房租上漲的確可能有利于房地產市場和整體經濟增長。正如一些經濟學家所指，房租應漲至令購房相對更便宜的水平。一旦這種情況發生，可以幫助扭轉房地產市場的頹勢。

????但Trulia最新的租買指數顯示，這種情況事實上在美國很多城市早就發生了。房地產市場的確在恢復，但遠未復蘇，房價仍在下跌，銀行繼續收緊放貸標準。

????當然，通脹加速分析并不限于房地產市場。如果價格小幅攀升，這些資產的價值理論上也會增長。工資也是一樣，可以讓消費者感覺更富有一些。而且，收入增加可以讓家庭更容易償還債務。另外，由于企業和家庭都預計價格上漲，些許通脹可以讓他們提早（而不是延后）支出和投資。等等，諸如此類。

????但經濟不是這樣簡單地運行。鑒于一系列不利于市場的因素，顯然這樣的理論是基于一些非常大膽的假設之上。比如，《財富》（Fortune）雜志的史蒂芬?甘德爾本周早些時候就指出，去年大部分時間都保持增長的美國大銀行放貸在2012年前3個月出現了下降。

????所有這些都使得伯南克的工作錯綜復雜（仿佛這還不夠明顯一樣）。即便如今經濟增長看來有了更為堅實的基礎，這位央行行長仍堅持至少在2014年底前保持超低短期利率。當然，如果房租上漲開始把通脹推高至2%的目標水平之上，超低短期利率將更難保持。

????在這一點上，美聯儲可能需要問的是，如果允許物價上漲，失業率有望下降多少？或者，更重要的是，這樣做會有什么風險？

????譯者：早稻米

????Most of us don't want to pay higher prices, but there's a growing debate over whether we should allow inflation to edge a little higher to help the U.S. economy grow.

????Earlier this week, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Engle joined fellow prize winner Paul Krugman in building the case for rapidly rising prices. They say it could help reduce joblessness, with Krugman suggesting that the Federal Reserve tolerate inflation of up to 4% to boost the economy. That's about double what Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has been targeting. Anything higher than that, Bernanke has said, would be "very reckless" and could potentially derail the economic recovery.

????He might be right, but economists urging higher prices also have a point worth considering.

????Increased rates for rental homes and apartments will serve as a big drive of a rise in inflation. After all, rents make up a relatively significant share (31%) of the consumer price index. And when it comes to core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy items, rents make up an even larger share of about 41%.

????Nationwide, the price for rentals has risen rapidly as fewer people own homes. During the first three months this year, the median asking price for rentals was $721 per month -- up 5.6% from a year earlier -- the U.S. Commerce Department reported earlier this week. Meanwhile, even as it's one of the cheapest times to buy, homeownership has fallen to 65.5% from its 2005 peak of 69.2%.

????Indeed, the rental market could soon push inflation higher. Nobody wants to pay their landlords more if they can avoid it. But higher rents could actually be a good thing for both the housing market and the broader economy. As some economists see it, the price of rentals would rise to the point where it becomes cheaper to buy. And if that happens, that could help reverse the housing market's malaise.

????But that has already happened across many U.S. cities, according to Trulia's latest rent vs. buy index. And the housing market, while indeed healing, is still far from revived, as home prices continue to fall and banks tighten their lending standards.

????Of course, the case for more inflation goes beyond the real estate market. If prices rise by just a little, the value of those assets would theoretically rise too. And so could wages, which could leave consumers feeling a little richer. And such a pay bump could make it a little easier for households to pay down their debts. What's more, as businesses and households expect prices to rise, a little inflation could get them to spend and invest sooner rather than later. And so on.

????But the economy doesn't work this neatly. Given the litany of factors working against the market, it's easy to see how such theories are based on some very bold assumptions. For instance, as Fortune's Stephen Gandel highlighted earlier this week, lending by the big banks dropped during the first three months of 2012 after rising for most of last year.

????All this makes Bernanke's job terribly complicated (as if that wasn't already obvious). Even as the economy appears to be on firmer footing, the central banker has held his course toward keeping short-term interest rates ultra low until at least the end of 2014. Of course, this might be harder to do if higher prices for rentals start pushing up inflation beyond his 2% target.

????At that point, the Fed will probably need to ask how much unemployment might fall if they allowed prices to rise. And, perhaps more importantly, what are the risks of such a move?